In recent years there’s been an increasing overlap between the beauty industry and the aesthetic industry – in particular in relation to non-surgical treatments. This is because aesthetic treatments such as Botox and fillers have become increasingly popular, with an increased emphasis on anti-ageing and looking good.
The beauty industry tends to take popular treatments from the aesthetic industry and reproduce them, albeit on a smaller, and usually less potent scale. For example, when Botox first became immensely popular, soon afterwards there was a plethora of creams available that promised to give Botox like results – such as creams containing synthetic snake venom. They claimed to mimic the wrinkle smoothing properties of Botox, and replicate its skin tightening effects.
Similarly, creams became available to plump out the skin, loosely mimicking the effects of fillers. The aesthetic industry continued to heavily influence the beauty industry in terms of skin care too, with the proliferation of creams and potions claiming to minimise cellulite and unwanted fat deposits in a slightly similar way to liposuction procedures. There was also creams available to ‘lift’ the breasts, reflecting the trend for surgical breast enhancement. Clearly, a cream would never have the ability to replicate breast implants or a breast lift, but creams claiming to tone and firm the breasts were popular. It perhaps suited those who didn’t want surgery for financial or other reasons, but still wanted to take care of and improve the appearance of their breasts.
Blurred lines?
Whilst it’s excellent that consumers have the choice of having full cosmetic surgery, or minimally invasive or non-invasive aesthetic treatments, or even to stick to creams and lotions, I don’t necessarily regard it as a good thing that the beauty and medical aesthetic industries are increasingly intertwined.
I believe it is better – and indeed safer – if the two industries remain distinct. They should complement each other, rather than mirror each other, and stay largely separate. The lines are becoming progressively more blurred and I think this is detrimental to consumers; although it must be said that the amalgamation of the two industries gives consumers increased choice and no doubt drives down prices.
There is a vast array of people claiming to be able to (and claiming to have license to) perform treatments such as Botox, Cosmetic Fillers, Peels and Microdermabrasion. A few years ago these treatments were exclusive to cosmetic surgery groups; but they now have filtered into beauty salons. Every other salon is now a ‘clinic’ offering anti-ageing treatments, laser therapy treatments, fillers and so on.
The medical aesthetics industry is in the midst of a significant shift. This shift can be seen in the increasing prevalence and occurrence of non-medical owned clinics in more retail oriented locations. The public are often oblivious to the fact that some of these practitioners in the beauty industry are ill-qualified to carry out these procedures and devoid of the necessary qualifications.
It seems that some spa and salon professionals are beginning to view these non-surgical procedures as simply more advanced versions of the skin care and aesthetic services they have been providing, and perhaps underestimating the level of expertise required to carry them out.
The likelihood is high that as more and more non-medical businesses get involved with aesthetic services more of their peers will have to strongly consider whether they want or need to keep up with the competition. This will breed additional growth until it is almost expected of these businesses to have these resources available for their clients.
It’s important that the aesthetic industry is regulated, to protect both consumers and practitioners. With regard to dermal fillers – a currently unregulated industry in which it’s possible for a layperson to obtain the filler from the internet without recourse – consumers are placed in real danger if a practitioner is not suitably qualified. Despite the drive to regulate this industry and to make dermal fillers prescription only, this has not yet been implemented. Unqualified practitioners expose customers to infection and nerve damage and even blindness if injecting the eye area . In the US, dermal fillers must be administered by a medical practitioner and they have much fewer products available from which to choose than in the UK where there’s a choice of dozens. There is intense scrutiny in the cosmetic interventions industry at this moment in time.
The tattooing of eyebrows, lips etc is another area where the line between the traditional beauty industry and the aesthetic industry has become blurred.
What’s your view?, does it sometimes get too confusing between the beauty and aesthetics industry to draw distinctions? let me know your thoughts..